ShareThis Page
Penn State ex-president Graham Spanier’s request for appeal denied |

Penn State ex-president Graham Spanier’s request for appeal denied

Associated Press
Former Penn State President Graham Spanier, who was Penn State’s president when the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal erupted, may soon be headed to jail after Pennsylvania’s highest court declined to take up his appeal. The state’s Supreme Court on Thursday Feb. 21, 2019 declined to hear Spanier’s appeal of a misdemeanor child endangerment conviction related to his handling of a 2001 complaint about Sandusky showering with a boy in the football team locker room.

HARRISBURG — Penn State’s president when the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal erupted may soon be going to jail after Pennsylvania’s highest court declined Thursday to hear the appeal of his conviction for child endangerment.

The state Supreme Court ruled it will not take up Graham Spanier’s appeal of the misdemeanor conviction related to Spanier’s handling of a 2001 complaint about Sandusky showering with a boy in the football team locker room.

Spanier, 70, had argued the trial judge and a lower appeals court wrongly relied on a statute of limitations law that prosecutors never cited.

He has been out on bail and has not begun serving a sentence of two months in jail and two months’ house arrest.

Spanier’s lawyer, Sam Silver, said they were disappointed by the court’s decision, while prosecutors said they were pleased.

“No one is above the law, and my office will continue to pursue anyone who looks the other way in the face of child sexual abuse,” Attorney General Josh Shapiro said in a statement. “There are consequences for failing to protect children in Pennsylvania.”

Spanier’s lawyers have said that for the relevant provision of the state’s statute of limitations to apply, prosecutors would have needed to prove the boy in the shower in 2001 was less than 14 years and 11 days old. Referred to as “Victim 2” in court records and testimony, the boy’s identity has been disputed, with prosecutors saying they are not sure who he is.

At the lower-level Superior Court, two of three judges on the appeals panel turned down Spanier’s arguments that too much time had passed to charge him, that he was not legally obligated to care for the boy, and that he should not have been charged because he did not supervise children directly.

But the third Superior Court judge said Spanier should have been told at a reasonable time before trial that prosecutors planned to rely on an exception to the two-year statute of limitations. She said she would have reversed his conviction.

Two of Spanier’s top aides when he was Penn State’s president, former vice president Gary Schultz and former athletic director Tim Curley, pleaded guilty to child endangerment and testified against him in 2017. They have since served county jail sentences.

Spanier, who did not take the stand at trial in his own defense, has said Sandusky’s attack on the boy was characterized to him as horseplay.

He told the sentencing judge he regretted he “did not intervene more forcefully.”

Spanier was forced out as Penn State’s president within days of the November 2011 arrests of Sandusky, Curley and Schultz. He was himself charged criminally a year later.

Sandusky is serving 30 to 60 years on a 45-count child sexual abuse conviction. He maintains he was wrongly convicted and recently won a Superior Court decision that granted him a new sentencing but did not give him the new trial he sought.

The scandal has cost the university more than a quarter-billion dollars, including payments to those who said Sandusky abused them as boys.

Categories: News | Pennsylvania | Top Stories
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.